Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1416 (MAD)

Ravi v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police

2006-06-19

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Udagamandalam in S.C.No.32/2002 dated 23.01.2003) M. Karpagavinayagam, J. The appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo RI for one year. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:- a) P.W.1 Janagan, is the brother of the deceased Singari @ L:akshmi. P.W.2. Ranjith @ Ranjitkumar is the son of the deceased. P.W.3 Ramakrishnan is the husband of the deceased. The deceased Singari @ Lakshmi had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the appellant/accused for construction of a house. The appellant/accused demanded for repayment of the amount. However, the amount was not paid. On 27.11.2001, she promised him to pay the amount on 28.11.2001. Therefore, the appellant/accused went to her house on 28.11.2001 at 3.30 p.m. and demanded the repayment of the amount. However, she said that she would not pay the amount as there is no document available to show that she borrowed the amount from him. The appellant/accused became furious. He found a chisel in the house and took the same and stabbed her indiscriminately, causing 25 injuries. She died on the spot. b) P.W.1, the brother the deceased came to Ooty for business purpose. After finishing the business work, he contacted his sister, the deceased over phone. There was no response. So, he went to the house of the deceased and he knocked at the door. He also rang the calling bell. As there is no response, he suspected and bolted the front door as well as the back door. He contacted P.W.2, the son of the deceased, who is working in a hotel and told him what had happened. Then P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others came the house of the deceased. They saw the front and back doors were bolted. Suspecting that somebody must be inside, information was conveyed to P.W.3, the husband of the deceased, who is working in a needle factory. They also went to the house of the deceased and broke open the door and they saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood. They also saw the appellant/accused with bloodstained clothes inside the room. Suspecting that somebody must be inside, information was conveyed to P.W.3, the husband of the deceased, who is working in a needle factory. They also went to the house of the deceased and broke open the door and they saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood. They also saw the appellant/accused with bloodstained clothes inside the room. When P.W.2, the son of the deceased asked the appellant/accused as to why he killed the deceased, he said that he paid a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the deceased and when he asked to repay the same, she refused to give back the amount since there is no document available to show that she had borrowed the amount from him. Therefore, he killed her. c) Then P.W.1 rushed to the Aravangadu police station and gave Ex.P.1 complaint to the S.I. of Police P.W.16. He registered a case in Crime No.171/2001 under Section 302 I.P.C. P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaint Ex.P.1, along with P.W.15 S.I. Of Police came to the scene of occurrence and found the appellant/accused. He saw the body of the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. He sent the appellant/accused to the police station. He recovered M.O.1 bloodstained shirt along with the pay slip and loan receipt belonging to the appellant/accused. He then conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and later, he went the police station and arrested the appellant and on his confession, M.O.2 chisel was recovered. He obtained the specimen signature of the appellant/accused and he arranged for taking finger prints through the Finger Print Expert. He sent the body for post mortem examination. d) P.W.11 is the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of Deceased on 29.11.2001. He issued Ex.P.23 post mortem certificate. According to him, the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and the injury to the vital organ brain. He also examined the appellant/accused. He issued Ex.P.21 wound certificate. e) The material objects were sent for chemical examination. After completion of examination, P.W.19 the Inspector of Police, successor to P.W.18, filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. f) During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 19, filed Exhibits P.1 to P.40 and marked M.Os.1 to 25 before the trial Court. e) The material objects were sent for chemical examination. After completion of examination, P.W.19 the Inspector of Police, successor to P.W.18, filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. f) During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 19, filed Exhibits P.1 to P.40 and marked M.Os.1 to 25 before the trial Court. g) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials, he denied his complicity in the crime. On the side of defence, none were examined and no Exhibits were marked. On the other hand, the appellant filed his written statement wherein he stated that as he was asked to come to the house by the deceased, he went on 28.11.2001 at 5.30 p.m. and at that time the door was locked and when opened the door, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. At that time, P.Ws.1 and 2 came there, caught him and produced him in the police station. h) The trial Court, after analysing the evidence available on record, found that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated above. This is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal before this Court filed by the appellant/accused. 3. While assailing the said judgment, Mr. A. Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused took us through the evidence and contend that that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, which has not been established in this case and as such, the appellant/accused is liable to be acquitted. 4. We have heard Mr. V.R. Balasubramaniam, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) on these aspects. 5. At the outset, it is relevant to state that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, the evidence relating to the finger prints found at the scene of occurrence which tallies with the finger prints of the appellant/accused and also the evidence relating to comparison of the specimen signature of the appellant/accused with that of the signature found in the Rani book found in the scene of occurrence, cannot be given much importance because, procedure has not been followed for taking the finger prints of the appellant/accused as well as the specimen signature of the appellant/accused. Further, P.W.18 does not speak about taking the finger prints of the appellant/accused. So, we have to see now as to whether the other circumstantial evidence available in this case would be sufficient to connect the appellant/accused with the crime. 6. The other circumstances are as follows: a) The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who saw the appellant/accused with blood stained clothes near the body of the deceased in a locked house, b) M.O.1 which belong to the appellant/accused contains blood stains, tally with the blood group of the deceased. M.O.1 shirt packet contains M.O.14 pay slip which is identified by P.W.7, who is working along with the appellant/accused that the said pay slip belong to the appellant/accused. As well, M.O.15 the loan slip was identified by P.W.8. c) M.O.20 blood stained pant worn by the appellant/accused tallies with the blood group of the deceased. d) The evidence of P.W.11 the Doctor through him Ex.P.21 has been marked would speak to the fact that the appellant/accused sustained injuries and the appellant/accused told him that he sustained those injuries in a scuffle between himself and a lady on 28.11.2001 at 2.30 p.m. in Indira Nagar. e) The medical evidence relating to the injuries found on the body of the deceased. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would strenuously contend that the consistent explanation given by the appellant/accused from the beginning is that he did not commit the crime in question, but on the other hand, he was asked to come to the house of the deceased to collect the amount and therefore, he went to the house of the deceased and he saw the body in a pool of blood and as such, he is not the culprit. Of course, even when he was examined by the learned Judicial Magistrate P.W.10 while giving 164 statement, he stated that he did not commit the crime and he was asked to come to the house by the deceased herself and therefore, he went to the house of the deceased to collect the amount. But, the fact remains that the bloodstained shirt and pant viz., M.O.1 and M.0.20 worn by the appellant/accused tallies with the blood group of the deceased. But, the fact remains that the bloodstained shirt and pant viz., M.O.1 and M.0.20 worn by the appellant/accused tallies with the blood group of the deceased. Further, with regard to the injuries sustained by him, it is noticed that the appellant/accused stated before P.W.11, the Doctor who examined him on 29.11.2001 at 10.15 a.m. that he sustained those injuries in a scuffle between himself and a lady on 28.11.2001 at 2.30 p.m. The appellant/accused has not stated so in the 164 statement given by him before P.W.10, the learned Judicial Magistrate. 8. In the light of the failure to give proper explanation, we have to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased, P.W.2 is the son of the deceased and P.W.4 is the neighbour of the deceased. According to them, the door was locked both on the front side and backyard and therefore, P.W.1 locked the front door and backside door from outside and after some time, they broke open the back door and went inside and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood and the appellant/accused was standing near the body. When P.W.2, the son of the deceased asked appellant/accused as to why he killed his mother, he specifically stated that he caused her death because she did not repay the amount borrowed by her. This statement given by the appellant/accused at the spot to P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 has been clearly spelt out in the complaint Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1 as well in the Court. 9. As a matter of fact, on the information given by P.W.1, P.W.18 Inspector of Police came to the scene of occurrence along with P.W.15, the S.I. Of Police, both of them saw the appellant/accused standing there and they sent him to the police station immediately. Of course, P.W.1 would state that the appellant/accused has been sent to the police station along with chisel and on the other hand, P.W.18 would state that chisel was recovered only on the next day. It does not affect the credibility of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4, who stated that immediately when they went inside the house, the appellant/accused told that he killed the deceased for the reason that he has been cheated by the deceased. Their evidence is clearly corroborated by the medical evidence. It does not affect the credibility of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4, who stated that immediately when they went inside the house, the appellant/accused told that he killed the deceased for the reason that he has been cheated by the deceased. Their evidence is clearly corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W.11, the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased would state that M.O.2 chisel could have been used for causing the 25 injuries found on the body of the deceased. Yet another important circumstance is M.O.1 bloodstained shirt and M.O.20 bloodstained pant worn by the appellant/accused tallies with the blood group of the deceased. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that M.O.1 shirt has not been identified by tailor P.W.14, who turned hostile. However, this will not affect the core of the case because M.O.14 pay slip and M.O.15 loan receipt were recovered from the packet of M.O.1 shirt. Both were identified by P.W.7 and P.W.8 that it belong to the appellant/accused. When there is no explanation from the appellant/accused as to how M.O.1, M.O.14 and M.O.15 were found in the house of the deceased, there is no difficulty to place much reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 4. Further, a reading of the 164 statement given by the appellant/accused before P.W.10, the learned Judicial Magistrate would indicate that there is no explanation at all, as indicated above, with regard to the blood stained clothes worn by him and also the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, from the above materials we are of the considered view that the materials placed by the prosecution would be sufficient to find the appellant/accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 10. In fine, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court. The District and Sessions Judge, Uthagamandalam is directed to secure the custody of the appellant/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.